mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

OT: Best James Bond

OK, I just got done watching all the bonds (took me about a month), and I know I am going to get negged for this, but in my heart I truly 100% believe that Roger Moore was the best James Bond. Sean Connery was great, but Moore just had way more class and pinache than any other bond. Roger Moore was also the best at uttering the words, "Bond, James Bond" Connery was more of a cocky tough ass. Does anyone else agree with me?

Also, I think Daniel Craig is the worst James Bond. I give him 1-2 more movies before Clive Owen takes the role as JB.

EDIT. Did you know that Roger Moore had the longest James Bond career, both in years and movie volume.

Not sure about Roger Moore, but I do agree that Daniel Craig is a terrible James Bond. He's too much of a thug with not much class. I don't get why so many people like these new Bond films. It's as if the movie studio has tried to turn Bond into a British Bourne, and even though I enjoyed the Bourne films, I do not think this is what James Bond should be about.

but I thought the newer Bond films were supposed to be a "returning to early years." If that's the case, it makes sense that Bond would be more brash and apt to get in fisticuffs and less sophisticated- he's supposed to be younger in them.

This is why he invents his famous drink, kills his first two for the "OO" status and generally runs around like a loose cannon in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

I should have specified. My problem with the new films is mostly with the directing. They use the shaky camera during actions scenes with I absolutely HATE. It works for the Bourne films because in those movies neither the audience nor Jason Bourne knows what's going on. However, in the Bond movies the shaky camera just results in the audience not being able to follow the action, which is pointless.

Sean Connery made Bond who he is, and since then no one has really been able to match him.

I don't think Craig is a bad Bond, but he is different. Definitely more rugged than sophisticated. I'd prob give him another 2 movies and then we should see another Bond (If they continue with the series at that point).

A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato

but I never watched Remington Steele, so Brosnan was a fresh face to me. Also, I never read one of Fleming's novels until I had seen a lot of the movies. So for me, Sean and to a lesser extent Roger, defined who James Bond was.

For me James Bond is sauve, daring, witty, clever and always composed. Bond gets by more on his wits than his combat skills. This, for me, makes for a good story. Bond is also a good guy, albeit one dealing with very tough bad guys. This makes it possible for me to root for Bond and not the bad guys.

As far as Brosnan being too much of a wuss? Since realizing that if Superman were invulnerable that he would rarely need courage, I haven't been much impressed with omnipotent "heroes". As for Craig? I want to root for Bond. The moment it becomes two bad guys fighting each other, who can I root for? It makes the line finer, perhaps more realistic, and perhaps closer to Fleming's Bond, but not as easy to root for.

That one probably had one of my favorite plots of all the bonds but I felt like Lazenby was a little too corny with the part to be a serious consideration. Never struck me as the physical type of dude who could pull some of the action scenes that Connery had perfected either,

George Lazenby is competitive with Connery for best Bond, but between the soundtrack, a dark plotline, Telly Savalas, Dame Diana Rigg and the devastatingly exotic allergy sufferers there is no question that OHMSS is the best Bond film ever made.

Ok I'll give you soundtrack, Savalas, Rigg, and the allergy sufferers, but in no way can I compare Lazenby to Connery. They presented totally different styles in my mind. way too contrasting. And dark plotline? In the previous movie, Blofeld wanted to provoke war between the superpowers, in this one he just wanted to wreck the English economy. I guess with the attempted suicide-death of Rigg it you could call that dark, but I'd question the overall plot as dark.

I really liked Timothy Dalton, he just got put into the two crappiest made ones with the two crappiest series of lines and the some of the ugliest bond girls. If he had taken the job when they offered after Connery left, he woulda made the 70s so much better for Bond. Not that I didn't like Moore, but I thought it was a little creepy in the late 70's-early 80's Bonds when it looked like a mid-40s early 50s Bond going after way younger girls (see a View to a Kill)

Clive Owen is also too old. He's 45 right now. Even if they do run Daniel Craig out of town (which I think is unlikely, given the success of Casino Royale and the relative success of Quantum of Solace despite the awful script and shaky-cam directing), by the time they get everyting turned around and ready for him, he'll be nearing 50. That's not a bad age to be wrapping up a Bond career, but not an age to start it.

But this assumes that Clive Owen starts right now, which is unlikely for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, MGM and the Bond franchise are in financing/development hell at the moment if I remember correctly.